Why do I feel like I am being punished by DVC for buying resale?

[MrInfinity]

Can someone say for those who aren't Wyndham followers... what exactly they did to devalue Wyndham / Bonnet Creek resale contracts so much? Was it all at once, or a gradual reduction?

 

[Maistre Gracey]

DVD sold it and moved on, then one owns a timeshare. If that owner decides to sell, there's no reason to expect the original developer will give them additional benefits over what's contractual, esp in the timeshare world.

Whatever... I respectfully disagree.
I'll go back to someone's Toyota example. Buy a new Toyota and sell it a year later. The factory warrantee transfers to the new owner.

MG

 

[Sammie]

Whatever... I respectfully disagree.
I'll go back to someone's Toyota example. Buy a new Toyota and sell it a year later. The factory warrantee transfers to the new owner.

MG

In this case the factory warrantee receives the access to a room at a discounted price. They receive the 11 month booking window.

That really is all we are guaranteed at purchase. I own a Toyota and the local dealer offers new tires and free oil changes for free to me. If I sell the car, the person buying does not get that.

To me it is very much the same.

 

[Dean]

Can someone say for those who aren't Wyndham followers... what exactly they did to devalue Wyndham / Bonnet Creek resale contracts so much? Was it all at once, or a gradual reduction?

I'm sure others can speak better than I for Wyndham, I'll give Bluegreen's story because I know it more intimately though I'm fairly aware of Wyndham's as well. They have similar stories and similar approaches including sales techniques and similar resale prices, almost free. They started a number of years ago as a points product and treated everyone the same. Over time they've moved to separate resale and retail buyers in 2 ways, a VIP program and by making it more difficult and more expensive to buy a resale. Their tiered VIP system requires qualified points and is stratified based on the # of qualified points. The VIP system offers additional benefits like:

• using points for cruises and to pay dues
• access to other exchange options outside of RCI/II
• the ability to reserve earlier than other members (up to 4 months earlier), it's really a priority wait list but it amounts to the same thing.
• a special phone # with the better staff, free cancelations
• free upgrades size upgrades and stay extensions
• reduced price access to cash rentals
• access to reduced rentals for friends family
• Access to their add on travel options (free for higher levels)
• Free cancelations
• Additional bonus rewards, more for higher levels.
• Upgrades with the exchange companies
• up to 3 free weeks a year for lower seasons.

On the resale and non VIP side they've raised fees and essentially taken the above options away where applicable. For example, they charge like $150 to change the name and $450 to transfer to a non family members PER individual contract. On my 4*25 AKV, that'd be a chunk. They qualify you based on number of qualified points rather than which points are qualified. It takes like 4-6 months to get a transfer through.

Whatever... I respectfully disagree.
I'll go back to someone's Toyota example. Buy a new Toyota and sell it a year later. The factory warrantee transfers to the new owner.

MG

In that example you'd get the contractual warranty but not any add ons like a VIP lounge, lifetime powertrain warranty, lifetime oil changes or tires for life. You get what's contractual but not anything else unless it's stated contractually that they transfer and almost always they say otherwise. The warranty would be the contractual items and the rest would be the developer add ons. Put yourself in the developer shoes. You don't want to pay for the competitor's opportunity and in reality, anyone that's selling, what they'd be doing. A somewhat similar situation that's directly related to DVC is the rental option. That is contractual but they want to limit it thus the commercial renting clause. They could chose to take other approaches that might be more effective but it doesn't make the ones in question unreasonable and in reality, the changes thus far are small potatoes.

 

[MrInfinity]

I'm sure others can speak better than I for Wyndham, I'll give Bluegreen's story because I know it more intimately though I'm fairly aware of Wyndham's as well. They have similar stories and similar approaches including sales techniques and similar resale prices, almost free. They started a number of years ago as a points product and treated everyone the same. Over time they've moved to separate resale and retail buyers in 2 ways, a VIP program and by making it more difficult and more expensive to buy a resale. Their tiered VIP system requires qualified points and is stratified based on the # of qualified points. The VIP system offers additional benefits like:

• using points for cruises and to pay dues
• access to other exchange options outside of RCI/II
• the ability to reserve earlier than other members (up to 4 months earlier), it's really a priority wait list but it amounts to the same thing.
• a special phone # with the better staff, free cancellations
• free upgrades size upgrades and stay extensions
• reduced price access to cash rentals
• access to reduced rentals for friends family
• Access to their add on travel options (free for higher levels)
• Free cancellations
• Additional bonus rewards, more for higher levels.
• Upgrades with the exchange companies
• up to 3 free weeks a year for lower seasons.

On the resale and non VIP side they've raised fees and essentially taken the above options away where applicable. For example, they charge like $150 to change the name and $450 to transfer to a non family members PER individual contract. On my 4*25 AKV, that'd be a chunk. They qualify you based on number of qualified points rather than which points are qualified. It takes like 4-6 months to get a transfer through.

In that example you'd get the contractual warranty but not any add ons like a VIP lounge, lifetime powertrain warranty, lifetime oil changes or tires for life. You get what's contractual but not anything else unless it's stated contractually that they transfer and almost always they say otherwise. The warranty would be the contractual items and the rest would be the developer add ons. Put yourself in the developer shoes. You don't want to pay for the competitor's opportunity and in reality, anyone that's selling, what they'd be doing. A somewhat similar situation that's directly related to DVC is the rental option. That is contractual but they want to limit it thus the commercial renting clause. They could chose to take other approaches that might be more effective but it doesn't make the ones in question unreasonable and in reality, the changes thus far are small potatoes.

Well, that's an interesting read. I think a lot of it comes down to the flurry of sites that have cropped up which bring buyers and sellers together that didn't exist before. When one can sell a timeshare, it stops looking like a purchase and becomes more like a 5 or 10 year rental. 10 families may get the use of one block of points over 50 years instead of 10 families each buying their own block. Timeshare companies have to discourage this selling of points because the whole model is based on sucking the family in up front, then having them stuck w the points (and maint fees) for life, or a very long time. When the points are fluid and people can just sell, you have to keep re-encouraging people to keep their points and not ditch them by keeping the quality of offerings up.

I like Disney's approach w the ROFR. When they want to prevent a timeshare being sold, they can just buy it back and sell it direct plus markup. As long as the demand is there, this model works. This model wouldn't work for other companies since they don't have the built-in demand for their product that Disney has of being in the Disney bubble.

It's interesting to watch the recommendations of owners out here. When someone comes out here asking for advice on buying, everyone says to buy retail, you're uneducated if you buy direct, etc... but really, encouraging everyone interested to buy resale and shun direct is just going to hurt the resale market in the long run. The greater the shift from direct to resale, the more Disney will be forced to do like the above, driving people to buy direct by removing perks to devalue resale.

So many people come out here and say "I just bought direct I'm so excited did I make the right decision?" and people just lay into them about not having researched... which is self defeating. To have a strong resale market, you want the direct market to remain strong first and foremost. If the direct market remains strong, then the resales can be ROFR'd at higher prices, and that preventing of the bottom from falling out like it does w other timeshares is what will ultimately serve to protect the price for owners and keep the product offering growing. When Disney sells out the Poly, they'll build something new. Every time they build something new, our value improves.

 

[disneynutz]

Well, that's an interesting read. I think a lot of it comes down to the flurry of sites that have cropped up which bring buyers and sellers together that didn't exist before. When one can sell a timeshare, it stops looking like a purchase and becomes more like a 5 or 10 year rental. 10 families may get the use of one block of points over 50 years instead of 10 families each buying their own block. Timeshare companies have to discourage this selling of points because the whole model is based on sucking the family in up front, then having them stuck w the points (and maint fees) for life, or a very long time. When the points are fluid and people can just sell, you have to keep re-encouraging people to keep their points and not ditch them by keeping the quality of offerings up.

I like Disney's approach w the ROFR. When they want to prevent a timeshare being sold, they can just buy it back and sell it direct plus markup. As long as the demand is there, this model works. This model wouldn't work for other companies since they don't have the built-in demand for their product that Disney has of being in the Disney bubble.

It's interesting to watch the recommendations of owners out here. When someone comes out here asking for advice on buying, everyone says to buy retail, you're uneducated if you buy direct, etc... but really, encouraging everyone interested to buy resale and shun direct is just going to hurt the resale market in the long run. The greater the shift from direct to resale, the more Disney will be forced to do like the above, driving people to buy direct by removing perks to devalue resale.

So many people come out here and say "I just bought direct I'm so excited did I make the right decision?" and people just lay into them about not having researched... which is self defeating. To have a strong resale market, you want the direct market to remain strong first and foremost. If the direct market remains strong, then the resales can be ROFR'd at higher prices, and that preventing of the bottom from falling out like it does w other timeshares is what will ultimately serve to protect the price for owners.

Many new buyers don't know anything about the resale market and that you can save thousands of dollars by buying resale. Disney is good at selling to guests with pixie dust in their eyes, all caught up in the magic of their Disney vacation. Based on Disney's reputation and PR they assume that everything that they are told is true which technically it may be but Disney is in the business of putting on a show. Just because you can do something that doesn't mean that it's a good deal or that you should. You also might not be able to book an event or use a direct perk because Disney limits the number of attendees or dates.

If Disney makes more money selling new resorts, they will let ROFR pass. If new direct sales slow for new resorts, they will open up selling older resorts and start buying contracts via ROFR like they have done in the past. It's all about the numbers and money.

Bill

 

[MrInfinity]

Many new buyers don't know anything about the resale market and that you can save thousands of dollars by buying resale. Disney is good at selling to guests with pixie dust in their eyes, all caught up in the magic of their Disney vacation. Based on Disney's reputation and PR they assume that everything that they are told is true which technically it may be but Disney is in the business of putting on a show. Just because you can do something that doesn't mean that it's a good deal or that you should. You also might not be able to book an event or use a direct perk because Disney limits the number of attendees or dates.

If Disney makes more money selling new resorts, they will let ROFR pass. If new direct sales slow for new resorts, they will open up selling older resorts and start buying contracts via ROFR like they have done in the past. It's all about the numbers and money.

Bill

Are you an owner?

 

[disneynutz]

Are you an owner?

Yes

Bill

 

[MrInfinity]

Yes
Bill

Well then this...

Disney is good at selling to guests with pixie dust in their eyes, all caught up in the magic of their Disney vacation. Based on Disney's reputation and PR they assume that everything that they are told is true which technically it may be but Disney is in the business of putting on a show. Just because you can do something that doesn't mean that it's a good deal or that you should.

...is actually your best friend. As an owner, you should want Disney to sell Poly at $175 or BLT at $180. Because every new member that buys direct increases the value of what you own. Every new member that buys resale is just buying someone else's contract and so does not increase the value of what you own.

So as a savvy investor, you should want to buy resale. But you should also not want to discourage others from buying direct, since you want what you own to be worth as much as possible. If a buyer buys direct and is happy and excited about it, it is a terrible action on your part to encourage them to rescind what they bought, as you are just undoing what was otherwise going to increase your own worth.

It's like say a widget costs $30,000. But you find the widget via a trick, at $15,000. Now you own a $30,000 widget. It is not in your best interests to encourage everyone else in the world to also get a widget at $15,000, because then you've just devalued your own widget to that price. If instead, you simply tuck away your profit and let others happily buy the widget for $30,000, then your widget retains its value of $30,000 and you are $15,000 ahead.

Another example is say when Disney raises ticket prices. People groan. But owners of Disney stock cheer. As an owner of stock, when D raises ticket prices, I'm happy because I make more via the increase to their stock then I'll lose by paying more for tickets. So once you own part of the magic -- whether it be stock or DVC, you should want Disney to use their "pixie dust in the eyes" to it's fullest capacity.

If Disney makes more money selling new resorts, they will let ROFR pass. If new direct sales slow for new resorts, they will open up selling older resorts and start buying contracts via ROFR like they have done in the past. It's all about the numbers and money.
Bill

Right. So you should want Disney to do well selling direct at the highest price they possibly can. Just saying. Everyone out here discourages direct... but every time you discourage a buyer that would buy direct from buying in new, you are long term devaluing your own ownership. If a buyer succumbs to the pixie dust effect, that is good for you as an owner because you want your ownership value to remain high.

 

[disneynutz]

Well then this...

...is actually your best friend. As an owner, you should want Disney to sell Poly at $175 or BLT at $180. Because every new member that buys direct increases the value of what you own. Every new member that buys resale is just buying someone else's contract and so does not increase the value of what you own.

So as a savvy investor, you should want to buy resale. But you should also not want to discourage others from buying direct, since you want what you own to be worth as much as possible. Especially if a buyer buys direct, is happy and excited about it, it is a terrible action on your part to encourage them to rescind what they bought, as you are just killing your own value.

It's like say a widget costs $30,000. But you find the widget via a trick, at $15,000. Now you own a $30,000 widget. It is not in your best interests to encourage everyone else in the world to also get a widget at $15,000, because then you've just devalued your own widget to that price. If instead, you simply tuck away your profit and let others happily buy the widget for $30,000, then your widget retains its value of $30,000 and you are $15,000 ahead.

Another example is say when Disney raises ticket prices. People groan. But owners of Disney stock cheer. As an owner of stock, when D raises ticket prices, I'm happy because I make more via the increase to their stock then I'll lose by paying more for tickets. So once you own part of the magic -- whether it be stock or DVC, you should want Disney to use their "pixie dust in the eyes" to it's fullest capacity.

Right. So you should want Disney to do well selling direct at the highest price they possibly can. Just saying. Everyone out here discourages direct... but every time you discourage a buyer that would buy direct from buying in new, you are long term devaluing your own ownership. If a buyer succumbs to the pixie dust effect, that is good for you as an owner because you want your ownership value to remain high.

The reality is that so few buyers use the DIS, we really are affecting anything that Disney does or their prices. As a DIS community, many of us feel that helping each other and helping new DVC owners or prospective owners is what the DIS is all about.

Bill

 

[MrInfinity]

The reality is that so few buyers use the DIS, we really are affecting anything that Disney does or their prices. As a DIS community, many of us feel that helping each other and helping new DVC owners or prospective owners is what the DIS is all about.
Bill

I get that and appreciate the community aspect of it, but it's still interesting reading about how owners out here talk so negatively about buying direct. You practically get accused of not educating yourself if you show up here and say you bought direct. As an owner, I think it makes more sense to help people out, but at the same time not digg our own value into the ground -- for it is the sales of direct that feed us. There is helping people to get the most out of their membership and then there is shooting our own foot by actively discouraging new sales of that which we communally own.

At the same time, owners out here realize the reality that many time shares fall thru the floor because they have little value once owned. So we see what can happen. We gripe about the pulling of perks. BUT the pulling of perks happens to drive direct sales. If we would help drive direct sales, then we wouldn't see the perks gap for direct-resale. Point is, this thread goes full circle. We are unhappy about the perks gap, yet, we discourage direct sales... which drives the perks gap further. Little by little. For now it's just some minor things that we mostly don't care about. But it ends up like Dean's list above.

It is self-defeating to actively discourage others from buying direct. Yes we're only a drop in the bucket, but that's like saying I don't have to recycle because I'm not going to have an impact.

 

[prestoncaldwell]

I'm sure others can speak better than I for Wyndham, I'll give Bluegreen's story because I know it more intimately though I'm fairly aware of Wyndham's as well. They have similar stories and similar approaches including sales techniques and similar resale prices, almost free. They started a number of years ago as a points product and treated everyone the same. Over time they've moved to separate resale and retail buyers in 2 ways, a VIP program and by making it more difficult and more expensive to buy a resale. Their tiered VIP system requires qualified points and is stratified based on the # of qualified points. The VIP system offers additional benefits like:

• using points for cruises and to pay dues
• access to other exchange options outside of RCI/II
• the ability to reserve earlier than other members (up to 4 months earlier), it's really a priority wait list but it amounts to the same thing.
• a special phone # with the better staff, free cancelations
• free upgrades size upgrades and stay extensions
• reduced price access to cash rentals
• access to reduced rentals for friends family
• Access to their add on travel options (free for higher levels)
• Free cancelations
• Additional bonus rewards, more for higher levels.
• Upgrades with the exchange companies
• up to 3 free weeks a year for lower seasons.

On the resale and non VIP side they've raised fees and essentially taken the above options away where applicable. For example, they charge like $150 to change the name and $450 to transfer to a non family members PER individual contract. On my 4*25 AKV, that'd be a chunk. They qualify you based on number of qualified points rather than which points are qualified. It takes like 4-6 months to get a transfer through.

In that example you'd get the contractual warranty but not any add ons like a VIP lounge, lifetime powertrain warranty, lifetime oil changes or tires for life. You get what's contractual but not anything else unless it's stated contractually that they transfer and almost always they say otherwise. The warranty would be the contractual items and the rest would be the developer add ons. Put yourself in the developer shoes. You don't want to pay for the competitor's opportunity and in reality, anyone that's selling, what they'd be doing. A somewhat similar situation that's directly related to DVC is the rental option. That is contractual but they want to limit it thus the commercial renting clause. They could chose to take other approaches that might be more effective but it doesn't make the ones in question unreasonable and in reality, the changes thus far are small potatoes.

Regarding VIP benefits, Wyndham will not count resale contract points toward the points requirement for VIP status. However, once a member has reached VIP status, many of the most important VIP benefits, like points discounts and later deadline to deposit points into the credit pool (up to 9 months into the year while mere mortals must deposit before the year starts), are available to resale points a VIP owner also owns. The points discount is a big one, and VIP owners have been able to cancel and rebook their reservations at 60 days to receive a discount up to 50% of the scheduled point cost plus an upgrade. I don't think it's worth the cost of retail, but many do.

Specific downgrades of resale:

Inability to use points for Cruise and other travel offers (this is a terrible value anyway)
Inability to exchange internally into Worldmark resorts (Worldmark is owned by Wyndham but is a completely separate club)
Membership to RCI Weeks ONLY. This restricts availability to Weeks deposits, where a retail owner gets access to both points deposits and weeks deposits, allowing for more inventory availability and short stays.
There are a couple more very minor ones I'm missing, I'm sure.

Wyndham actually strips their contracts less than BlueGreen and Wastegate (which is by far the worst), but more than Disney (even after loss of discounts) and Marriott. Mariott charges a hefty junk fee to register a resale purchase with the points program (like $5K for a 2,500 point contract). I don't know much about Vistana (nee Starwood), but I do know it depends on whether you buy a StarOptions mandatory or non-mandatory resort.

ETA: A couple reasons for Wyndham's lack of resale value are the sheer number of owners (meaning more wanting out at any given time), and the fact that Wyndham has never, ever exercised ROFR (to my knowledge).

 

[prestoncaldwell]

I get that and appreciate the community aspect of it, but it's still interesting reading about how owners out here talk so negatively about buying direct. You practically get accused of not educating yourself if you show up here and say you bought direct. As an owner, I think it makes more sense to help people out, but at the same time not digg our own value into the ground -- for it is the sales of direct that feed us. There is helping people to get the most out of their membership and then there is shooting your own foot.

At the same time, owners out here realize the reality that many time shares fall thru the floor because they have little value once owned. So we see what can happen. We gripe about the pulling of perks. BUT the pulling of perks happens to drive direct sales. If we would help drive direct sales, then we wouldn't see the perks gap for direct-resale. Point is, this thread goes full circle. We are unhappy about the perks gap, yet, we discourage direct sales... which drives the perks gap further. Little by little. For now it's just some minor things that we mostly don't care about. But it ends up like Dean's list above.

It is self-defeating to actively discourage others from buying direct. Yes we're only a drop in the bucket, but that's like saying I don't have to recycle because I'm not going to have an impact.

Just because a developer withholds an alternative to suit its business needs doesn't make me feel right to do the same.

 

[MrInfinity]

Just because a developer withholds an alternative to suit its business needs doesn't make me feel right to do the same.

If you are a coop owner of whatever that developer is building, you're not going to be very good for the coop if you go around telling people "no don't buy in, there are resale condos across the street that are practically the same for less." That would be awful to be publicly advocating against what your own coop is trying to sell.

 

[prestoncaldwell]

If you are a coop owner of whatever that developer is building, you're not going to be very good for the coop if you go around telling people "no don't buy in, there are resale condos across the street that are practically the same for less." That would be awful to be publicly advocating against what your own coop is trying to sell.

Let me put it more bluntly. Buying from scammers doesn't obligate me to be a scammer myself.

 

[MrInfinity]

Let me put it more bluntly. Buying from scammers doesn't obligate me to be a scammer myself.

Who are you saying is a scammer? Disney? You bought a real interest in a company... Yet you don't like their product or advocate others buy it, and you consider it a scam?

 

[prestoncaldwell]

Who are you saying is a scammer? Disney? You bought a real interest in a company... Yet you don't like their product or advocate others buy it, and you consider it a scam?

For clarity, I didn't buy any interest in DVC. I own in another system.

However, if someone even asks about resale, the salesmen typically give responses ranging from exaggerating the downfalls of buying resale to outright lying about it. The salespeople have to make a sale to make a living, and if they are willing to suspend ethics in order to do this, I suppose that is who they are.

I, on the other hand, value morality over the edge that misleading potential buyers would give me. That's who I am. I won't judge you for drawing a different line, but neither will I cross an ethical line in the interest of your property value.

Salesmen would be selling close to what they are selling now if they were just straight up about the benefits, because a lot of buyers into the systems with great resale, like DVC and Marriott, don't have the free cash to lay out on a resale contract, and no one will finance it. That is more the reason for your devaluation than anything the salesman or you or I tell a potential buyer. A bonus is a lower rescission rate as buyers ask here or on TUGBBS.com and discover that their salesman was truthful in all his descriptions. Some great salesmen realize this and are doing quite well (and sleeping well at night), but old culture dies hard.

I would advocate that anyone who asks buy Disney. It's a wonderful product. But if they have the cash on hand to do it, I have no problem telling them resale exists. It isn't their fault timeshare developers are selling a product that instantly depreciates once the rescission period is over.

 

[supersnoop]

It's like say a widget costs $30,000. But you find the widget via a trick, at $15,000. Now you own a $30,000 widget.

I disagree. I think you have it backwards. Just because Disney was able to sell the widget for $30k doesn't mean it's worth $30k. Nobody else can sell it for that price. You take the depreciation hit the moment you sign the deal.

Disney is selling a $15k widget for $30k by throwing in about $2k of extras. But since those extras are not transferable, you still own a $15k widget, no matter if you paid Disney $30k or bought resale.

 

[MrInfinity]

For clarity, I didn't buy any interest in DVC. I own in another system.

However, if someone even asks about resale, the salesmen typically give responses ranging from exaggerating the downfalls of buying resale to outright lying about it. The salespeople have to make a sale to make a living, and if they are willing to suspend ethics in order to do this, I suppose that is who they are.

I, on the other hand, value morality over the edge that misleading potential buyers would give me. That's who I am. I won't judge you for drawing a different line, but neither will I cross an ethical line in the interest of your property value.

Salesmen would be selling close to what they are selling now if they were just straight up about the benefits, because a lot of buyers into the systems with great resale, like DVC and Marriott, don't have the free cash to lay out on a resale contract, and no one will finance it. That is more the reason for your devaluation than anything the salesman or you or I tell a potential buyer. A bonus is a lower rescission rate as buyers ask here or on TUGBBS.com and discover that their salesman was truthful in all his descriptions. Some great salesmen realize this and are doing quite well (and sleeping well at night), but old culture dies hard.

Well, it's not really about "suspending ethics". Is the kid at Best Buy who tries to sell me a $50 extended service plan on a $200 TV unethical? He knows it's being sold to make the company money, he knows most people never use them, if asked by a family member he'd say don't ever buy them, and he would not buy them himself... yet he still plugs them to every customer. He'd be an unethical kid by your standards -- when really, it's just his job. You sell them because you work for the company and making the company money at the expense of the consumer is what makes the company profitable. It's called sales. Best Buy will make more money on the 1 in 10 warranties it sells than on all 10 of the TVs. If it weren't for the sales-kid getting 1 in 10 warranties to stick, we'd all have to pay more for TVs.

Just because Disney was able to sell the widget for $30k doesn't mean it's worth $30k. Nobody else can sell it for that price. You take the depreciation hit the moment you sign the deal. Disney is selling a $15k widget for $30k by throwing in about $2k of extras. But since those extras are not transferable, you still own a $15k widget, no matter if you paid Disney $30k or bought resale.

I think you misread that. If you had a widget you want to sell, that people are willing to pay you $30,000 for, but you got for $15,000, would you willingly tell the world how to get them for $15,000 thereby intentionally devaluing your own widget to $15,000? Like say you can list your widget for sale on Craigslist for $30,000 and you know you will get that much because that's what people are paying. Would you put in the ad, "please note, you can get the same widget elsewhere for $15,000"? There is no reason to deliberately devalue your own interests.

 

[supersnoop]

I think you misread that. If you had a widget you want to sell, that people are willing to pay $30,000 for, but you got for $15,000, would you willingly tell the world how to get them for $15,000 thereby intentionally devaluing your own widget to $15,000? Like say you can list your widget for sale on Craigslist for $30,000 and you know you will get that much because that's what people are paying. Would you put in the ad, "please note, you can get the same widget elsewhere for $15,000"? Once you are an owner, you have (should have) an incentive to keep the value up and not willingly devalue your own interests.

Nope, I didn't misread. You aren't devaluing your widget. Your widget is only worth $15k. The widget that someone bought from Disney for $30k is also only worth $15k. Nobody will pay you $30k for the widget. Disney's price does not accurately reflect market value.